Robert B. Kemp, Jr. - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
               Petitioner has identified no ministerial error or delay                
          after the October 4, 1999 issuance of the notice of deficiency,             
          and we find none.  After issuance of the notice determining the             
          fraud penalties for 1989, 1990, and 1991, petitioner failed to              
          petition this Court with respect to the fraud penalties for 1989            
          and 1990 determined in the notice.  The penalties were assessed             
          107 days after the expiration of the period for filing a Tax                
          Court petition, on April 19, 2000, and were paid on October 17,             
               Petitioner advances one additional basis for finding an                
          abuse of discretion by respondent.  Relying on Jacobs v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123, petitioner claims that                   
          respondent abused his discretion by failing to disclose the basis           
          for his decision to reject petitioner’s claim for abatement of              
          interest.  Petitioner’s reliance on Jacobs is misplaced.  In that           
          case, the Commissioner had given no explanation of his decision             
          not to abate interest, other than a conclusory statement that               
          there were no errors or delays that warranted abatement.  Here,             
          while the explanation given in the notice of final determination            
          is likewise conclusory, respondent offered a more detailed                  
          statement of his reasons in the written explanation accompanying            
          the preliminary determination to deny abatement.  The reasons               
          therein given, to the effect that the delay attributable to the             
          investigation of petitioner’s case and the criminal proceedings             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011